marti
Junior Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 27, 2012 18:13:30 GMT -8
|
Post by marti on Sept 13, 2012 6:33:49 GMT -8
There seems to be a lot of that going around.
It was bad enough when authors got their friends and family to post bogus reviews, but now you can just buy them. For example, John Locke was just busted for buying reviews. I don't have a link to the article just now, but you can google his name if you want to read it.
Anyway, John boasted of selling a million books in a few months on Amazon, and guess what, he was paying people to write reviews and buy his books.. I guess at $.99, that was not a big expense.
Now, you have to wonder if any reviews are worth believing and it sure makes those of us who do it the honest way look bad.
If this keeps up, the whole review process will be at risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Sept 13, 2012 9:12:04 GMT -8
Marti, linkedin has threads on review swapping and/or fake reviews and how they have hurt the business so much that readers are beginning to not believe any reviews. Thanks, Amazon.
|
|
russellphillips
Guest
Joined: May 4, 2024 5:08:40 GMT -8
|
Post by russellphillips on Sept 13, 2012 22:33:37 GMT -8
Ted, I'm not sure why you're blaming Amazon for this. Fake reviews aren't new, and they're not unique to Amazon. There's a recent thread on this forum from someone who thinks some people are posting fake reviews to Smashwords. Carlton Hotel Group asked employees to post positive reviews on TripAdvisor. I'm sure there are things that Amazon (and Smashwords, and TripAdvisor, and everyone else) could do to reduce the number of fake reviews, but it's worth noting that Amazon at least do investigate suspicious reviews when they are reported. |
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Sept 14, 2012 7:14:06 GMT -8
Russell, I mentioned Amazon because they are the guerrilla of the online ebook business and because the majority of posts on linkedin are from Amazon Kindle authors seeking review swaps.
I suggested in another thread that one way to cut down on fake reviews might be to limit reviews to readers who have purchased x number of books before being allowed to post a review.
Having readers report suspicious reviews is like closing the barn door after the horse has left. The suspicious review may be up for months or years before anyone bothers to report a suspicious review, be read by hundreds or thousands of people before being removed, may influence purchase of other works by an author, and removed review may or may not have been a fake in the first place but just a way for another author or someone with nothing else to do to cause trouble.
|
|
marti
Junior Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 27, 2012 18:13:30 GMT -8
|
Post by marti on Sept 14, 2012 11:40:51 GMT -8
I really hate the review swap thing authors do. Any way you look at it, it is dishonest.
Meanwhile, I like the way Apple does it. They only post three reviews and the rest are ratings. Nook is better too, because you can leave a review and not worry about being attack for it. No comment section is available.
I would like to see all the booksellers go to a rating service instead of reviews. They've lost their value, in my opinion.
|
|
russellphillips
Guest
Joined: May 4, 2024 5:08:40 GMT -8
|
Post by russellphillips on Sept 16, 2012 23:01:07 GMT -8
Russell, I mentioned Amazon because they are the guerrilla of the online ebook business and because the majority of posts on linkedin are from Amazon Kindle authors seeking review swaps. They are the biggest ebook retailer, so they get the most fake reviews. The problem certainly isn't limited to them, though, and I doubt the issue of fake reviews even started at Amazon. I suggested in another thread that one way to cut down on fake reviews might be to limit reviews to readers who have purchased x number of books before being allowed to post a review. There are lots of ways that fake reviews could be limited, but I doubt your suggestion would make much difference. You suggested three books in the other thread - three $0.99 books would only cost $2.97, that's not much of a barrier. Having readers report suspicious reviews is like closing the barn door after the horse has left. The suspicious review may be up for months or years before anyone bothers to report a suspicious review, be read by hundreds or thousands of people before being removed, may influence purchase of other works by an author, and removed review may or may not have been a fake in the first place but just a way for another author or someone with nothing else to do to cause trouble. Whatever steps they take to prevent fake reviews, they'll still happen. Given that, I think it makes sense to have some method to report reviews. I'm not saying that having people report reviews is the only thing needed, but I do think it's a good thing to have in place. |
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Sept 17, 2012 5:56:14 GMT -8
Russell wrote: "Whatever steps they take to prevent fake reviews, they'll still happen. Given that, I think it makes sense to have some method to report reviews. I'm not saying that having people report reviews is the only thing needed, but I do think it's a good thing to have in place."
Having a place for people to report reviews is a good thing, that I don't deny, but my reasons for questioning the effect of suspicious reviews before being removed are reasonable.
Russell wrote: "They are the biggest ebook retailer, so they get the most fake reviews. The problem certainly isn't limited to them, though, and I doubt the issue of fake reviews even started at Amazon."
I don't know where the issue of fake reviews started, and I'm sure Amazon isn't the only web site with fake reviews. I only mentioned Amazon because that was where almost all requests for review swapping were directed by members of the writing/author communities to which I belong on Linkedin.
|
|
